Friday, July 12, 2013

My Wednesday column focused on an extraordinary story — the heroism of a 51-year-old Northwest Side man who chased down an alleged thief near the lakefront on July 4 after he said he saw the man victimize a woman in a pedestrian tunnel.

But the event that police say started it all was depressingly, infuriatingly ordinary — the theft of an iPhone.

In fact Gary Dailey said he’d just slapped down the hand of a young rowdy who’d tried to grab his phone when he saw another man wrestling a phone away from the woman.

Makes perfect sense from the thieves’ point of view: Just about every other person they encounter on the street is carrying if not actually brandishing a small computer that can be concealed easily during the getaway and converted quickly into a couple of hundred bucks cash.

Less subtle than pickpocketing, but a quicker score. Authorities say the fences quickly clear the phones of all their identifying data and peddle them on a secondary market, often overseas.

No wonder smartphones — iPhones, Androids and the like — are so often involved in crime. The Federal Communications Commission says 4 in 10 robberies in major cities involve mobile phones.

“The epidemic of violent street crime involving the theft and resale of mobile devices is a very real and growing threat in communities all across America,” said New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in announcing the Secure our Smartphones Initiative, a national, multiagency effort to seek a technological solution to the problem.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is part of that effort. “In 2012, 1.6 million Americans were victimized in incidents related to cell phone thefts,” Madigan said a statement released by her office.

“In Chicago in recent years, there has been a rise of more than 30 percent in mobile phone thefts at public transit locations . . . It is imperative that manufacturers and wireless carriers are part of the solution.”

Yes. The problem would just about go away if a stolen smartphone could be remotely turned into an essentially worthless slab of metal, plastic and glass barely worth picking up off the ground, let alone risking jail time to grab off a victim in a public place.

“We’re not saying ‘here’s the code, put it in your phones,’” said Erik Jones, Madigan’s policy director. “We’re saying it’s possible for them to make stolen cell phones inoperable and useless.”

The Initiative, which includes other attorneys general, head prosecutors, police chiefs and consumer advocates, is calling for all smart phones to be enabled with a so-called “kill switch.”

Savvy skeptics aren’t optimistic. “They want that magic kill switch to turn the phone into a brick so that it would need to be returned to the manufacturer to be used again,” wrote Sean Kalinich at the online news site Decrypted Tech. “The logic seems sound and the goal is certainly laudable (but) the problem is that it is also possible to unbrick a phone if you know what you are doing.”

So it’s going to require a multipronged approach:

New software, such as Apple is introducing, to make it harder to disable and reactivate a phone.

New hardware that makes it more difficult to reassign phones to new users.

New databases, such as the national registry of stolen phones going online this year.

New laws, such as the Mobile Theft Deterrence Act introduced in May by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that calls for a five-year prison sentence for anyone caught tampering with the identification numbers of stolen phones.

New resolve on the part of police to break up the theft rings, crack the black market and make stealing a cell phone a risky crime even when there isn’t a hero nearby.

And of course a new level of public awareness that any time you expose your smartphone in public, you might as well be flashing a fat wad of bills.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"New laws, such as the Mobile Theft Deterrence Act introduced in May by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that calls for a five-year prison sentence for anyone caught tampering with the identification number of stolen phones."

"And of course a new level of public awareness that any time you expose your smartphone in public, you might as well be flashing a fat wad of bills."

Personal responsibility? Gee, what a concept!

The number of robberies in major cities involving mobile phones would probably be reduced to less than one in ten if pedestrians would protect their phones in the same manner as they protect their wallets.

I can immediately disable my phone, though not kill it. Recycling of replaced cellphones is big business, as is the recycling of car components of certain vehicles. Should we find a way to permanently disable cars, including their valuable parts, if the owners are foolish enough to leave the car unlocked or the keys in the ignition?

A national registry would have as much effect as VIN numbers of automobiles; it's too easy to work around this.

A five year prison sentence seems excessive to me. Haven't I seen posts on this blog about trying to reduce prison overpopulation? Sen. Schumer's proposal seems to be going in the wrong direction.

What we need is a mechanism that can remotely fry the circuitry inside the phone, sort of like how the Mission: Impossible tapes self-destruct. If thieves knew such technology existed and was installed on every cell phone, maybe they'd move onto something less troublesome.

We watched an excellent documentary this week, The Gatekeepers. The Israeli internal security agency, Shin Bet, assasssinated a known terrorist in Gaza by getting him to use a cell phone they were monitoring. In addition to being a working cell phone, the phone contained explosives they could detonate remotely when monitors identified the terrorist's voice as he was making a phone call to his father.

Too much?

Seriously, though, I recall reading a story a couple of years back suggesting that Apple was dragging its feet on addressing the problem because they didn't mind selling large numbers of replacement phones. For all I know it was just a lot of hooey, but I don't think it would be such a bad thing to develop a mechanism to destroy a phone identified as stolen.

--"New laws, such as the Mobile Theft Deterrence Act introduced in May by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that calls for a five-year prison sentence for anyone caught tampering with the identification numbers of stolen phones."

Yes but what if the perp goes before a liberal judge and it turns out he had a tough childhood?

Personal responsibility sounds great until it happens to you. Unlike wads of cash or wallets, which can be pretty easily put out of reach of pickpockets, people *use* their phones in public and among crowds. It's not foolish to do that -- you reasonably want to answer the call or respond to the text or check the movie times or snap that picture or whatever. Being able to do all that on the go, and right away, is the whole point of the device. Yes, by all means, people should be careful, but it strikes me that whenever you're using the phone out in public among others, a thief could catch you unawares, and if he does, that doesn't necessarily bespeak a failure of "personal responsibility" on your part.

There was a short story written a few decades ago, I believe the title was "The Crazy Old Lady", by Avram Davidson. This old woman was fed up with get her purse stolen several times, so she rigged up her purse with a little war souvenir her late husband brought home, a hand grenade. When the next thief stole her purse, the pin was sticking through a hole in the side & a string attached to her coat. A few seconds later, Ka-Boom, no more thief!

I'm with Wendy C on this one. The number of idiots I see blindly walking around the city attached to their iphones and listening to music or chatting away is staggering. JakeH is right that it's not necessary to completely refrain from using your phone in public but it's not necessary to completely refrain from taking a wad of cash out of your pocket in public too - just be careful where you do it and of any reactions you get.

This brings me back to the woman whose phone was grabbed in the Gold Coast leading to the guy chasing down the thief who was arrested by police. Not only did she get to close to the thief and his friends (who you'd never want to get close to especially in a small tunnel, and especially when you are with a child - check out the mug shot) but she had her phone out. Yeah, yeah, never blame the victim but she did offer him an opportunity.

Look, the only way the disable feature is going to work is if it permanently damages the phone. Any clever technical disabling trick that can be undone will be figured out and posted on the internet immediately.

@jlp: Not at all. It was a purse snatcher, they immediately run away from the victim. In the 3-5 seconds it takes for the grenade to explode, he's far enough away & his body will shield her from the blast.

Once again advocating for killing someone for theft of a purse. Just wow.

Back on the topic, how do you deal with false claims of theft? Or someone who just leaves their phone in a cab, on the bus/train? (If I were taking an iPhone I found on a sidewalk bench to the business it was closest to as part of a lost-n-found, I would certainly not want to have it explode in my hands by an overzealous police department trying to handle a theft.)

There's no need to kill the perp. Perhaps the phone could be equipped with a kill switch teamed with a taser-like shock. Immediately after it's snatched from your hand, you pull out a minuscule remote with two buttons. First button is the taser; press it and hope the thief drops the phone. Second button is the kill device accompanied by this voice message over the phone's speaker: "This device will self-destruct in five seconds." Call it the 'Theft Mission: Impossible' phone.

quotidian, are you talking about the gas station owners who cheated the state (and us) by collecting the state sales tax & then not sending it to the state? So I pay for gas which includes a tax to be paid to the state, and someone takes it instead, and that's ok? The amount we were defrauded was in the hundreds of thousands of $$, not just a few sense, and it was only a couple of gas stations (owned by the same people) that did it in the case I read about recently. Just this time. Consumer protection is part of the AG's job, and in my opinion, pretty important, because there are always people who will take advantage of us. To quote Xuuths, "Sheesh!"

Yesterday a coworker told me that some had come up to her son who was near or at Taste of Chicago, and robbed him, at gunpoint, of his Galaxy Note phone, which he was holding, looking at & not paying attention to his surroundings. He was with some friends but they weren't together at the time, as they were all looking around deciding where to go. He went to the TMobile store right away & reported it. They disabled it, though he said that anyone who had computer skills could get around that, and he ordered a new phone, which his mother gets to pay for, and with insurance still costs $175.00. Although at least he won't be responsible for huge phone charges. And he doesn't really know if they had a gun or not, or just stuck something in his ribs & said they did. But maybe he'll be a little more discrete about holding his phone where it can be easily taken in the future. Pay attention!

Liz, no, I'm talking about when gas prices spike Lisa gets up and urges people to report gas station owners "price gouging," which encourages people to blame gas stations for the price of gas. Most station owners hate it when prices spike. Their margins, which are tiny on gas, tend to go down. I called her office and reported that the state is guilty of gouging, because when prices soar it compounds the miser by collecting more tax per gallon, as Illinois taxes gasoline by percent of sale price, not per gallon.

Prosecuting anyone who doesn't turn in collected sales tax is fine, but don't take advantage of bad circumstances to prop your image as a crusader.

"Meh It is just as false in this column as it was Wednesday. Dude's no hero. "

I'm accustomed to conservatives who live in a black and white social reality, so it's interesting when liberal, social sacred cows are in play: the same silliness ensues.

The complicated world, the inherent tensions between values, the shifting implications of actions in imaginary alternative worlds, all of it becomes a make-believe, unambiguous, hard fact, where right and wrong is supposedly indisputably clear.

jpn says the guy who helped get a criminal off the street, at risk to himself, isn't a hero. Meh. I'm not impressed. If you thought in any depth at all about the hero as a construct, you'd realize how ridiculous your declaration is.

Xuuths has my widow being told at my funeral that I'm a stupid man, but in the reality where events actually occurred, a man responsible for about a dozen armed robberies went to prison, perhaps preventing the death of his next crime victim. How is the imaginary scenario of preventing a death any less possible than Xuuths imaginary scenario involving my death and my wife's encounter with an imaginary boorish mourner?

For iPhone users, there are some nice safety features that come standard with the phone. Why anyone would fail to use them is beyond me. First and foremost, set a passcode to lock your phone when it is not in use (Settings / General / Passcode Lock). It's super-simple, and as long as you don't pick 1-2-3-4, thieves won't be able to access your personal data. Secondly, if you and your significant other both have iPhones, download "Find My iPhone" from the app store. It's free, it's made by Apple, and it allows you to track your husband's / wife's stolen phone via GPS. It also allows you to restore the phone to factory settings remotely, if need be:

There are a ton of similar apps that allow you to track stolen Android or iOS phones via GPS, sound an alarm remotely, or send a text and immediately snap a photo of whoever reads it, all from a web browser. Download one. You won't regret it.

To be fair, though, qotidian, there are gas stations guilty of price gouging, more often when there is a shortage or something like that. I don't think that's any more ok than someone charging more for water or food in those times, either. None of that is right, slim profit margin or not. It is unfair to demonize all gas stations because of bad actors, but then, I don't think they all are cheating the state of sales tax money, either, when some are. By the way, even though I don't like the fact that the sales tax is even charged on gas, and it goes up as gas prices go up, I don't blame anyone when it does, and the same when the price of, say, milk goes up & the sales tax goes up there too. Better than charging a flat tax on every gallon that always is the same whether the price is less or more.

@Dr. X: "How is the imaginary scenario of preventing a death any less possible than Xuuths imaginary scenario involving my death and my wife's encounter with an imaginary boorish mourner?"

After Newtown, there was some debate as to the wisdom of well-meaning citizens carrying guns in public places. From what I've seen, there isn't much reliable data on the likelihood of these citizens using their guns responsibly (e.g. preventing crimes) vs. the likelihood of them using their guns irresponsibly (e.g. shooting someone accidentally or applying disproportionate force). Gun rights advocates insist that preventing crimes is likelier whereas gun control advocates insist that accidents/misuse are likelier. Both sides believe their position is not only correct, but obviously correct.

Unfortunately, there's a dearth of data on this stuff, partially because it's difficult to measure and partly because the NRA is dead set against this type of data collection. If we knew how likely these various imaginary scenarios actually were, then we could weigh the costs and benefits of both our individual actions and our law enforcement policies in a more informed manner. As it is, we rely on our values, our hunches, our prejudices, our life experiences, and various "obvious" truths.

Personally, I would never carry a gun in public because a) I don't frequent places where it would be necessary, and b) I think there's a greater chance that someone would steal it or that I would have an accident than there is that I would play the hero. In other words, carrying a gun at all times would make me feel *less* safe. For other people, the opposite is true.

I think you're absolutely correct when you talk about "the complicated world." To my mind, a smart response to a crime in progress is to read the situation and act accordingly. If I saw someone on a train getting mugged at rush hour by a 5'5" guy using his bare hands, I would intervene. If I saw someone on a train getting mugged at 2:00am by a 6'10" guy brandishing a knife, I would hang back. Or at least, that's what I think I'd do. Sometimes people surprise themselves in these situations, reacting in ways they never thought they would.

P.S. Whatever steps people take to protect themselves, I think Greg J. is spot-on when he stresses the importance of being aware of your surroundings at all times.

@Xuuths: There's nothing wrong with killing purse snatchers, nothing at all. They are the lowest of the low, stealing from people who have almost nothing as they usually do it after some old lady has gotten some checks cashed, which are her sole income source for that month.

"jpn says the guy who helped get a criminal off the street, at risk to himself, isn't a hero. Meh. I'm not impressed."

I don't particularly care. Note sure if you participated in the previous thread, if you did, then you saw my points (before that thread descended into the all-too-common name-calling fiasco). If you didn't, well, you can go back and read the comments there.

Anyone who gives pursuit of a criminal over an iPhone, jeopardizing himself and others, is an idiot, not a hero. And now this "hero" has his name, occupation and location out in the public domain, where criminals with ill intentions can easily find him. How happy his family, friends, and neighbors must be over that.

If those questions were directed at me, sorry, I don't have an answer. I thought the other person's comments about your hypothetical demise were inappropriate and unnecessary, and bringing your family into it was beyond inappropriate and unnecessary.

I don't think giving chase in a downtown, crowded street, in a pedestrian tunnel under LSD, is an appropriate response to the theft of an iPhone. (The specific example from the blog post.) I am not up to speed on your specific situation(s) and don't feel like chasing it/them down on a Friday afternoon.

By the way, has anybody asked the victim where her iPhone was locked, as Edge describes above? Did she have the "find my iPhone" app?

If the phone wasn't locked, and she didn't have the app, she's an even bigger idiot than our "hero" here. If she did have the phone locked, and the app, WHY should anyone risk ANTHING to get it back?

Really, how stupid are these people. That's a much more interesting topic than whether this NW side real estate agent is a hero or not.

To be fair, though, qotidian, there are gas stations guilty of price gouging, more often when there is a shortage or something like that. I don't think that's any more ok than someone charging more for water or food in those times, either. None of that is right, slim profit margin or not. It is unfair to demonize all gas stations because of bad actors, but then, I don't think they all are cheating the state of sales tax money, either, when some are. By the way, even though I don't like the fact that the sales tax is even charged on gas, and it goes up as gas prices go up, I don't blame anyone when it does, and the same when the price of, say, milk goes up & the sales tax goes up there too. Better than charging a flat tax on every gallon that always is the same whether the price is less or more."

Well, generally when there is a shortage, almost by definition the price is going to go up. Spikes in gasoline are most prominently caused by shortages, which causes the wholesale price to rise. And gas is one of the few things that displays prices outside the store, so competition keeps most stations honest. If you raise your prices inordinately beyond what the shortage mandates, someone is going to undercut you.

With sales tax, I just think per gallon is more tolerable for people, especially because poor people have to use gas, and the tax is regressive. Gas prices are so volatile. I don't think the state should get a windfall just because there is strife in the Middle East or a refinery goes down.

The blog ate my post where I corrected Dr X's mistake about my use of the word "stupid" at a funeral. He should have known better, and I hope he'll look back at that exchange for his edification. (HINT: no accosting, no boorishness)

I have to disagree with jpn, discussing the aftermath of a "hero's" actions are definitely appropriate and necessary -- particularly when they get killed in the process. 'No man is an island' and such.

If Garry ever claims to be good, decent, moral or ethical, we have the evidence to refute that with his 12:53pm post.

Xuuths, the point is that you spun only the possibility of my death, which didn't happen, while giving that possible outcome the entire weight in the discussion of the best course of action. What you didn't give any weight to is what actually occurred. A serial, violent, armed robber went to prison. And what about a death that may have been prevented because of that?

You created a simple, fictional morality tale to determine what I should have done, ignoring what did happen and the possible implications of that. And I might add, that you weren't there, in any of the situations I described. I'm the one who had the first hand opportunity to size up what was occurring and judge the risks in each situation, and I was right each time. But you think you know. You don't know.

jpn you say - Anyone who gives pursuit of a criminal over an iPhone, jeopardizing himself and others, is an idiot, not a hero. And now this "hero" has his name, occupation and location out in the public domain, where criminals with ill intentions can easily find him. How happy his family, friends, and neighbors must be over that.

All over an iPhone.

Yep, some hero.

Ok, so today the clown steals an iPhone, and no one cares, so he gets away. Now tomorrow, you, your spouse/significant other, parent or child is walking off the subway and the same clown decides to grab a phone, and the process knocks the target off the platform and they fall on the third rail, I bet you might wish that someone had stopped them earlier.

Dr X, and you "spun" only the possibility of your success, giving that outcome the entire weight in the discussion of the best course of action. What you didn't give any weight to is how LUCKY you were.

I have no need to invent "fictional morality tale" (nice way to call me a liar, but like MCN, your logic is flawed and inaccurate -- a friend of mine's husband WAS shot coming to the rescue of a pursenapping, which turns out to have been a habit of his, almost like he sought out situations where he could be the "hero").

You were LUCKY each time, because you couldn't possibly have had enough information to accurately "judge the risks in each situation". I'm a little surprised that you would claim otherwise. Yes, I "know" YOU couldn't possibly have known whether ANY of the people you chased had loaded weapons on them or not -- unless the X is for X-ray vision!

This topic certainly has unsettled your otherwise controlled responses. I suggest taking a break to help regain perspective.

Okay, so today the clown steals an iPhone, and no one cares, so he gets away. Now tomorrow he gets his act together, stops stealing, graduates high school, goes to college, attends medical school, becomes an advanced scientist, and discovers the cure to a rare form of cancer, which saves hundreds of lives.

I bet you might be glad that nobody had stopped them earlier.

I'm done here, on this topic. Why don't you continue making up unlikely, improbable scenarios and see if others want to engage you over them?

(And to head off the inevitable "my scenario is MORE likely than yours" let me just state: I don't care.)

@Wayne & especially jpn: A couple of years ago, a creep stole a phone & in running away, knocked a woman down the stairs at the Belmont L station & killed her. It took a long time for the cops to finally find him.
So, yes, it does matter that this guy is a hero!
Wayne you're correct!

Dr X, sorry to burst your bubble of illogic, but a friend of mine's husband did get killed trying to be a hero during a pursenapping.

I don't have to create any fictional morality tales, or have been physically there to point out that YOU were lucky. Or to point out that unless the "X" stands for X-ray vision, you can't possibly have known that the people were unarmed. You were lucky. Your wife was lucky. Any possible people who might have also been hit by a stray bullet were lucky.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.